What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[AAA]

It's an incorrect reversal of an "implies" logical operator.

A=>B does not mean B=>A

"Things that are designed look designed" does not mean "Things that look designed are designed".

As an analogy, all cars made at a particular garage are green.

Therefor, every green car was made at that garage.

Wrong. Faulty logic.

Obviously just because it looks designed doesn't mean it is, but it is evidence. Design is the only known cause that can explain the features in cells, therefore it is the best explanation so far. You can wait for a different explanation, but don't say there is no evidence of design.

[AAA]

...some words...

So because you can't see a rational explanation for this stuff, you've decided that - rather than to keep looking for a rational explanation - the best way forward is an irrational explanation?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. The lamest defence of Theism is (drum roll):

The God of Gaps.

Were you one of those guys who was saying up until a few weeks ago that there was no evidence for gravity waves, so current astronomical theories must be invalid, and therefore there is a God?

BTW. You expressed doubts that I have a degree. I could post a photo of it on here if you like. Just give me a ten digit number and the photo will include that as well.

But of course, that would just be me providing evidence, and in your book, evidence is irrelevant.

And if I can reproduce your ten digit number in my photo, I suppose you'll say it couldn't possibly have happened by coincidence and therefore God must have been involved?

No it is because NOBODY has a natural explanation for it. It isn't just me not understanding it, it is that not a single person on the planet knows how it could have happened without being designed. And you are defining what is rational and irrational. I think that believing in the mathematically impossible is irrational, but that's what you do. 

The reason I have doubts about you having a degree is that you kept asserting that DNA could replicate itself, when that's not even close. I don't want a picture of it.

And I never said evidence is irrelevant. I'd love to talk about the cellular phenomena, but nobody else here understands any of it accept RocketSurgeon. You have just been conditioned to believe that you are on the side of evidence, and I am the side who doesn't like it. 

And no, randomly picking 10 digits and getting them correct is not close to picking the hundreds of digits needed to make a protein.

[AAA]

I just read through all 8 pages of this.  Why do I feel like I just sat through a Sunday morning sermon!

AAA, you are entitled to your own beliefs. As a loyal religious person it is your job to defend the faith.
Having said that, it doesn't matter what discipline you study: biology, physics, robotics, etc.

You will use any knowledge you learn in your field and skew it to fit your comic book. (jesus gives you kudos when you do)
In this case its biology. You are breaking the first rule of science. Skewing the evidence to suit your outcome. That's a big naughty, naughty, no, no.

(At least I hope you're doing that! For your sake! You'll burn in hell if you're not defending Jesus!)

Just to add.
You believed in God way before you started studying biology. You had no proof then, why all of a sudden do you feel compelled to need proof all of a sudden.
Are you trying to convince yourself or us.
Since you've already decided on the outcome, you'll happily argue your case with all other disciplines as well. eg: cosmological fine tuning? Sorry, when did you become Carl Sagan?
Alex? get the program man! This guy knows his shit better than you!

I'm not skewing evidence though? Do you have an example of when I lied about evidence? maybe I have a different interpretation, but that is allowed and should be encouraged in science.

[AAA]

Do they teach the difference between "wine" and "whine"?

Apparently not

[abaris]

Design is the only known cause that can explain the features in cells, therefore it is the best explanation so far.

No, it isn't. First, you're filling gaps again. Secondly, design is a result of natural observation. Design, as in humans designing stuff, didn't drop from the blue heavens. It's a process of observation, which led our ancestors to designing tools and other things. So nature is the model, human design is the result. You can't look at the work of humans and come to the conclusion that nature has been designed too.

Nature simply adapts to what's working best in certain environments.

[Cyberman]

It's not like if it isn't peer reviewed it's making stuff up. Peer review is simply a good way to make sure that experimenters don't overlook things in their study, that they didn't fudge the data, and that they conducted it well.

Which must be why you aren't concerned about holding ID to the same standard of peer review as actual scientific papers. You have to know, at least on some level, that it cannot withstand the scrutiny.

[AAA]

Design is the only known cause that can explain the features in cells, therefore it is the best explanation so far.

No, it isn't. First, you're filling gaps again. Secondly, design is a result of natural observation. Design, as in humans designing stuff, didn't drop from the blue heavens. It's a process of observation, which led our ancestors to designing tools and other things. So nature is the model, human design is the result. You can't look at the work of humans and come to the conclusion that nature has been designed too.

Nature simply adapts to what's working best in certain environments.

Filling in the gaps of what? And if an asteroid hit tomorrow with a circuit board attached to it, would we have to say that we are just filling in the gaps by saying it was designed? Do we just have to wait for somebody to try to explain how it formed without intelligence? Designer is only filling a gap if we assume that it can never be the correct answer.

[AAA]

It's not like if it isn't peer reviewed it's making stuff up. Peer review is simply a good way to make sure that experimenters don't overlook things in their study, that they didn't fudge the data, and that they conducted it well.

Which must be why you aren't concerned about holding ID to the same standard of peer review as actual scientific papers. You have to know, at least on some level, that it cannot withstand the scrutiny.

I think they should be held to the same standard, but they aren't.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I guess the lamest one was :
We make pots for a reason. We are alive hence we were made then we serve a purpose and that is to serve god.

I couldnt tell if the guy was being serious or just fucking with me

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

So if everything is designed, is vaccum designed too?